- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA RPFC NO.113 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. S T SHARADAMMA W/O. B. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT. SHREE. VASAVI SENIOR CITIZENS OLD AGE HOME, SUPRABHANANDA MARGA, AALANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU – 560 028 PRESENTLY R/AT- DOOR NO. 564, 10TH CROSS, ANIKETHANA ROAD, NEAR BANAVI HOSPITAL, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THUSHANATH C V.,ADVOCATE) AND: B KEMPEGOWDA S/O. LATE. BHOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RETIRED SURVEY SUPERVISOR R/AT. NO. 87,YACHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KALENAHALLI POST, ARAKALAGUDU HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 113 ALSO AT- MANJUNATHA NILAYA NO.582, 10TH CROSS, NEAR DODDI ROAD, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.174/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This RPFC is filed by petitioner against the order of the Crl.Misc.No.174/2021 dated 10.11.2022. Translated copy of the judgment is filed before this Court. 2. Heard the arguments of both sides. 3. Perusal of the order of the Court shows that an application is filed by petitioner herein/wife aged 79 years against her husband aged 83 years. It is stated that their marriage was performed on 18.04.1963. The respondent was working as a Surveyor in the Revenue Department at the time of marriage. They are blessed with two sons and a daughter. They lived together for 43 years from 1974 to 2017. The petitioner stated that later respondent neglected the family, as - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 such her first son left home and the second son left the school halfway and joined in the job. The respondent performed marriage of their daughter, but not given the agreed amount to their family, as a result son-in-law got married to another person. She further alleged that respondent is in immoral relationship with a widowed woman in Hassan from the past 40 years and he was maintaining her and her seven children. As such the petitioner filed complaint before the Hassan Police on 22.10.2012 against respondent, her second son and daughter- in-law. She also stated that respondent is forcing her to move to the village house with their second son and daughter-in-law and they are trying to kill her, they are not providing minimum facilities and she has to cook for her and live alone. She also stated that respondent used to come to the house at Hassan for doing farm work once in a month and at that time abused her and forced her to go to her village house. She filed complaint through her daughter on 01.11.2017, from 04.11.2017 she is residing in an old age home for Senior Citizens. Daughter was paying the amount to the said old age home though she lost her job in a private school. On 10.10.2018 respondent visited the old age home, abused her - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 and tried to assault her. He is getting pension of more than Rs.50,000/- per month. He owns three storied, three houses in Hassan, two houses in the village and 8 acres of land and earning lakhs of rupees, besides the respondent has several lakhs of rupees in his bank account. Still he is refusing to support her, as such she sought for maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. 4. Objections are also filed by the respondent, in which he has stated, there is no dispute regarding marriage and paternity. It is observed that respondent has some ancestral land in the village, after his retirement he used his retirement benefits and pension money for development of the said land and thus he frequently visits the village and it was difficult for him to travel, petitioner refused to join him at the instance of their daughter. It is further stated that property worth 1 and 1/2 Crores purchased by the respondent in the name of petitioner and she also received property worth about rupees 20 lakhs from her parental family. On 04.11.2017 their daughter Bhagyalakshmi took the petitioner from their house, sold all the jewelry and admitted her in the old age home. In - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 fact, she herself left the house voluntarily at the instance of daughter on 10.10.2018. When he requested her to come back, she insulted him. If she returns home, they will take care of her health and well-being. Respondent has no assets or income and he is living under the protection of his youngest son. The Family Court considering the arguments of both sides observed that she is not entitled for any maintenance and dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the case. Aggrieved by the said order, this RPFC is filed. 5. Admittedly, the respondent worked in Revenue Department and presently he is getting pension of Rs.36,718/- per month. The petitioner is residing away from him may be at the instance of her daughter, but she resided in a old age home from 05.11.2017 to 31.03.2021 and later she is residing in a rented house in Kumvempunagara from February 2021. She filed Ex.P8 rental agreement and thus it is clear that both of them are residing separately from November 2017 onwards. 6. Petitioner approached this Court at the fag end of her life seeking maintenance from her husband who is also - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 aged 83 years. Respondent stated that he has no other properties and he himself is living with his second son and daughter-in-law and all of them are ready to take care of the petitioner, if she joins them. Whereas petitioner stated that they never took care of her, as such she is residing separately. She also made certain allegations against respondent, but it was not established. The Family Court also observed as per Ex.P27-Gift Deed executed by respondent he has given his house to the younger son and he is not legal owner of the said property. Petitioner can read and write Telugu and she addressed two letters to her daughter Bhagyalakshmi on 10.07.2017 and 12.07.2017 and marked as Ex.P15. On 01.11.2017 Bhagyalakshmi filed a complaint as per Ex.R1 alleging that the petitioner's husband, son and daughter-in-law were torturing the petitioner to leave the house. 7. The main contention of the respondent/husband is that she voluntarily left the house without any reason. He was taking care of her properly and even now they are ready to take care of her. But the petitioner and respondent lived together for a period of 43 years, now she is residing - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 separately from him from 2017 onwards and she mainly alleged that she was not taken care properly by them. Therefore, it cannot be said she deserted him voluntarily without any reason. 8. It is also brought on record that respondent used his retirement benefits and developed the land in the village. It shows that he is also having sufficient properties and trying for the development of the said properties. Even if we leave all those things, he is getting a pension of Rs.36,718/- per month and is residing with his son, whereas, petitioner is residing separately in the ancestral house. Therefore, petitioner requires some amount for maintenance to meet her day to day requirement. 9. Therefore, this Court finds just and reasonable to direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of petition and the order of the Family Court in dismissing the application is not on proper appreciation of facts. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010268442025 NC: 2026:KHC:37439 RPFC No. 113 of 2025 10. In the result, this RPFC is allowed by setting aside the order of Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.174/2021 dated 10.11.2022. 11. The petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. 12. Respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition and he is also directed to deposit the arrears within two months from the date of the order. 13. Failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to take steps as per the law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2